To all atheists here

[SharekhaN]

^^ sort of like the placebo effect. It does work. Proven scientifically

 

[PaulBarber]

^^ that's why even though I would call myself an atheist, I never discourage anyone who really believes in God. It's good for them (provided they use it the right way of course).

BTW if you notice, every culture in the world, regardless of whether they are tribals in the deepest jungles of Africa, or citizens of the developed world, always have a religion. I believe it satisfies a basic need for security - inherent in human nature.

 

[SharekhaN]

Then the question arises, why does the human try and move away from something that is so inherent?

If anything we should accept what one feels naturally no?

 

[PaulBarber]

^^ The moment you realize that it's your belief that causes the effect, not God; the moment you are able to see through this, you automatically lose your belief in God. It doesn't matter whether you believe your God is a stone idol, or the sun or wind or whatever, doesnt matter, the faith will work.

It's education that causes this realization. If you observe, all atheists are highly educated and logical people.

Kind of ironic, isnt it? The moment you understand the mechanism of faith, you lose your faith.

 

[FaH33m]

^ not completely true , from what Ive seen and noticed one of the most highly educated and people related to science and medical field are firm believers of a higher authority in nature and that is because they know there are some questions unanswered , some things that dont have any explanations .

Infact if you go through this link posted by qsahmed above ,

PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF ALLAH TO AN ATHEIST

Though the link is more like proving allah of islam , it is true to some extent.. Frankly I am not a complete follower of my religion or it's teachings but it helps me believe that there is someone who created everything.

 

[PaulBarber]

^^ Yes buddy, of course, there are a whole lot of things in the world that are unknown to us. I didn't say that all educated people are atheists.

There are so many phenomena that are incomprehensible to us, or stuff which we are unable to conceptualize or explain. Eg: concept of parallel universes, multiple dimensions, etc, even quantum physics is so baffling.

You can react in 2 ways to this. Either attribute all of these to a higher power, or accept that our knowledge is not complete, and there are a lot of things in this world that we don't understand, and maybe we wont ever understand. A lot of concepts intrigue me, like the concept of a universal consciousness for example.

I personally dont believe in an omnipresent God, who judges your every move, but I would like to believe there is a set of rules in this world, like Newton's law, every action produces an equal and opposite reaction, so more good you do, more good you get in return. Of course I have no proof or anything for any of this; it's just something that catches my fancy. I'll go way off-topic if I continue this

If you notice, out of highly educated people, doctors are the ones who have the strongest belief in God. Coz of the type of work they do (life or death - of patients), a belief in an external power gives them a high level of comfort.

Infact if you go through this link posted by qsahmed above ,

PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF ALLAH TO AN ATHEIST

Though the link is more like proving allah of islam , it is true to some extent..

I dont want to comment on this. I'm not against any religion. I believe Islam is one of the purest religions as far as concepts of religions are concerned. I have my comments on this, but we'd better not discuss this in a public forum.

 

[blr_p]

I have my comments on this, but we'd better not discuss this in a public forum.

Its using the ontological argument. See here for more ways to do the same.

I'm not sure its possible to make a watertight case with it which is why i think feeling is a safer argument eg one prefers A over B and no one can tell you otherwise

 

[SharekhaN]

I am reminded by the movie "Thank you for smoking".

People usually use then when they speak of a religion vs anything.

I proved that you're wrong, and if you're wrong I'm right.

The problem with the question is that, until there are answers there are no answers. I believe that the religions have already told their stories and science is getting to its now. Only when science has proven everything it has set out to, only then can we actually say with complete confidence of what is right and what is wrong.

I think just as a sign of educated people, we should have an open mind and be open to possibilities, even that of a superior power as we all know that nothing is impossible.

 

[Brendon]

There is a misunderstanding with the word theory as used in science as compared to english. See this.

So when you say theory in English, it actually means hypothesis in science

As to how good this theory is, wiki says

So in plain english Big Bang is not 'just a theory' but has good support.
See below in above referenced wiki article

The fact that there are still competing theories about the origin of the universe and it is still open to debate I dont see why we should hold it as blind truth.

For all the 'science' that the big bang theory claims to be. It still contradicts with other theories about the age of the universe. Here is another link about an age crisis - WMAP- Age of the Universe

Just because a theory has good support, we should not blindly believe in it since like others have pointed out, medicine and science have many secrets and a lot of garbage is passed between actual truth.

Take the theory of evolution for example. They estimate the earth to be billions of years old. Yet it relies on carbon dating which has proved on numerous occasions to be grossly incorrect. Yet the theory of evolution is based almost entirely on this flawed method of testing and most of the scientific community take it as truth regardless. Hence I do not place much faith on 'theories'

Is Earth 4.5 Byr Old?
Radiometric Dating

I also take offense to the saying that once a person becomes educated he/she becomes an atheist. Who do you think runs so many renowned educational institutions around the world - The Catholic church. Why would they want to promote education if it would make people atheists ? :S

We have created amino acids and nucleic acids which are the basic buliding blocks of life in our laboratories from simple molecules which were present in the earths atmosphere at that time.
I think abiogeneisis is more plausible than believing something we have never seen or have any single minute shred of evidence for plonked us upon the earth.

Ok we are creating building blocks of life in our laboratories (but not life itself). But how come life formed so many years ago without any laboratories

I am sorry but you are free to call my argument childish but it is completely illogical for me to believe that a single cellular organism can come to life out of inanimate matter and then suddenly get the ability to reproduce itself and then become multi cellular. Where did all that information come from ? How did this single cellular organism suddenly get the information to multiply and reproduce itself.

The very fact that nature is very ordered (predator - prey, season etc) and the sheer complexity of a human being leads me to believe that some higher being designed all this.

Darwin believed that DNA was very simple. We now know that its extremely complex. How in the world did it become so complex ? Who provided all data so that it became complex ?

Mind you I am not against science. Heck I would not be on a technology forum if I did not ! :bleh: But at the same time I believe life and the universe is far too complex for it to be just some random events that happened.

 

[PaulBarber]

I also take offense to the saying that once a person becomes educated he/she becomes an atheist. Who do you think runs so many renowned educational institutions around the world - The Catholic church. Why would they want to promote education if it would make people atheists ? :S

I didn't say that when a person becomes educated, he becomes an atheist. Neither did I say that a religious person is uneducated.

That's over-simplifying things. Education provides you the opportunity to think different, consider all the facts, opinions and theories that are available and take an informed independent decision with an opinion of your own (instead of blindly following your parents' faith). An educated person deciding to be a believer is to be equally respected (since he is taken an independent informed decision).

Whether you decide to become an atheist or a believer (or many of the intermediate stages) depends on a lot of factors including your upbringing, your line of thought etc etc.

Education just opens the door to more possibilities. You are still what you choose to become. No need to take offence

I am sorry but you are free to call my argument childish but it is completely illogical for me to believe that a single cellular organism can come to life out of inanimate matter and then suddenly get the ability to reproduce itself and then become multi cellular. Where did all that information come from ? How did this single cellular organism suddenly get the information to multiply and reproduce itself.

The very fact that nature is very ordered (predator - prey, season etc) and the sheer complexity of a human being leads me to believe that some higher being designed all this.

Darwin believed that DNA was very simple. We now know that its extremely complex. How in the world did it become so complex ? Who provided all data so that it became complex ?

Mind you I am not against science. Heck I would not be on a technology forum if I did not ! :bleh: But at the same time I believe life and the universe is far too complex for it to be just some random events that happened.

I'll recommend a book for you - "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. Please read it if you haven't.

IIRC he has comprehensively answered the exact same query you just raised (about how Darwinism can/cannot explain the complexity of the life forms that we see).

 

[Hacker]

I am sorry but you are free to call my argument childish but it is completely illogical for me to believe that a single cellular organism can come to life out of inanimate matter and then suddenly get the ability to reproduce itself and then become multi cellular. Where did all that information come from ? How did this single cellular organism suddenly get the information to multiply and reproduce itself.

The very fact that nature is very ordered (predator - prey, season etc) and the sheer complexity of a human being leads me to believe that some higher being designed all this.

So in short you are saying that life is too complex for you too understand so it must be designed by a designer aka higher being aka god.

That's the whole concept of an infinite being isn't it ? There is no beginning and no end. God simply exits. Again we are finite beings (I hope I don't have to prove that ! ) and so it is difficult to comprehend such things because we are making our judgment at a fixed point in time and at a fixed point in the universe.

Who told you there is no beginning and no end, who told you that god simply exists. Can you point to some scientific studies which have proven what you are saying.
Anyway whatever we say is not going to change your mind, you will cling to whatever beliefs and stories which make you feel safe, so live in your bubble and whenever you are ready, you can come out.

 

[blr_p]

The fact that there are still competing theories about the origin of the universe and it is still open to debate I dont see why we should hold it as blind truth.

Correction!...there were competing theories but as posted earlier BBT has majority support as of now. And its not blind truth its through observation & evidence over many decades now. If you consider it was coined in the late 20s, thats pretty good going for a 'theory'

You must realise that these fields are competitive in their own rights. Get published in a major journal and there is pressure from others to either confirm or debunk and there are lot of arguments back & forth. It takes serious faith in ones abilities to defend one's position to the world or lose. Thats the level science plays at if its to be called such.

Good science bears out several tests over a very long period or it gets replaced with something better.

For all the 'science' that the big bang theory claims to be. It still contradicts with other theories about the age of the universe. Here is another link about an age crisis - WMAP- Age of the Universe

On the contrary instead of contradiction your article offers a confirmation if you read right at the end this important bit

The expansion age measured by WMAP is larger than the oldest globular clusters, so the Big Bang theory has passed an important test using data independent of the type collected by WMAP. If the expansion age measured by WMAP had been smaller than the oldest globular clusters, then there would have been something fundamentally wrong about either the Big Bang theory or the theory of stellar evolution. Either way, astronomers would have needed to rethink many of their cherished ideas. But our current estimate of age fits well with what we know from other kinds of measurements.

since like others have pointed out, medicine and science have many secrets and a lot of garbage is passed between actual truth.

Science does not progress with secrets. If ppl want to be famous then there is a strong incentive to publish. As for garbage its really down to how respectable the publication it appears in.

Take the theory of evolution for example. They estimate the earth to be billions of years old. Yet it relies on carbon dating which has proved on numerous occasions to be grossly incorrect. Yet the theory of evolution is based almost entirely on this flawed method of testing and most of the scientific community take it as truth regardless. Hence I do not place much faith on 'theories'

Is Earth 4.5 Byr Old?
Radiometric Dating

This site belongs to creation geophysics

Young Earth creationists have made a number of claims in the field of geophysics, mostly related to the age of the Earth and flood geology. According to the United States National Academy of Sciences, creation geophysics, and creation science more generally, fails to meet the key criteria of any true science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural events.

Darwin's theory has withstood tests for 150 years now so i find it hard to believe that it might not have a very good chance of being true.

 

[GameNome]

Ok we are creating building blocks of life in our laboratories (but not life itself). But how come life formed so many years ago without any laboratories

I am sorry but you are free to call my argument childish but it is completely illogical for me to believe that a single cellular organism can come to life out of inanimate matter and then suddenly get the ability to reproduce itself and then become multi cellular. Where did all that information come from ? How did this single cellular organism suddenly get the information to multiply and reproduce itself.

The very fact that nature is very ordered (predator - prey, season etc) and the sheer complexity of a human being leads me to believe that some higher being designed all this.

Darwin believed that DNA was very simple. We now know that its extremely complex. How in the world did it become so complex ? Who provided all data so that it became complex ?

Mind you I am not against science. Heck I would not be on a technology forum if I did not ! :bleh: But at the same time I believe life and the universe is far too complex for it to be just some random events that happened.

A simple answer is complex beings are better equipped to compete for natural resources.

No one needs to provide any new data, as you call it, but rather the old data mutates to perform new functions.Layer upon layer of these mutations makes us complex.

As for your higher being theory, all the creatures who roam the earth presently weren't introduced all at once, rather,thousands of new species have been continually introduced into the environment throughout time.

How did each of these new species emerge? Consider the Eohippus--an early species of horse-- How did it come into existence? Did a pair of adult eohyppi suddenly materialize out of nowhere 50 million years ago ? And is this higher being creating species even today ? Is it possible that I could be walking in a field somewhere and suddenly - BOOM - I have a new species of adult horse right in front of me ?

Evolution is a matter of observation really not belief, most of the organisms around us are not really unique enough for me to say evolution is impossible/improbable.

 

[Brendon]

So in short you are saying that life is too complex for you too understand so it must be designed by a designer aka higher being aka god.

Who told you there is no beginning and no end, who told you that god simply exists. Can you point to some scientific studies which have proven what you are saying.

Dude, I am going to stop here as all of us are sticking to our guns as I do not have conclusive proof of God and neither does anyone have any proof that God does not exist.

Anyway whatever we say is not going to change your mind, you will cling to whatever beliefs and stories which make you feel safe, so live in your bubble and whenever you are ready, you can come out.

I choose not be as petty as you and give a retort to your last statement.

A simple answer is complex beings are better equipped to compete for natural resources.

No one needs to provide any new data, as you call it, but rather the old data mutates to perform new functions.Layer upon layer of these mutations makes us complex.

As for your higher being theory, all the creatures who roam the earth presently weren't introduced all at once, rather,thousands of new species have been continually introduced into the environment throughout time.

How did each of these new species emerge? Consider the Eohippus--an early species of horse-- How did it come into existence? Did a pair of adult eohyppi suddenly materialize out of nowhere 50 million years ago ? And is this higher being creating species even today ? Is it possible that I could be walking in a field somewhere and suddenly - BOOM - I have a new species of adult horse right in front of me ?

Evolution is a matter of observation really not belief, most of the organisms around us are not really unique enough for me to say evolution is impossible/improbable.

I never said evolution is complete BS. It has a lots of truth in it. But I refuse to believe in it entirely. I do not for instance believe that we evolved from apes and that life formed out of inanimate matter.

 

[greenhorn]

Science does not have all the answers. Neither does Religion. Ask them the right questions, be happy with the answers you get. Both of them exist to serve us. When you let Religion take over you, you become too bigoted, and if you take science take over you, you become too skeptical. Use either of them as required, and you'll be happy

 

[Neotheone]

Science does not have all the answers. Neither does Religion. Ask them the right questions, be happy with the answers you get. Both of them exist to serve us. When you let Religion take over you, you become too bigoted, and if you take science take over you, you become too skeptical. Use either of them as required, and you'll be happy

Lovely post mate..... :hap2: .

The debate Science V Religion must end once and for all.... Science should become more human and acknowledge it's limits (while working to overcome them) and Religions must reform to include contemporary knowledge . A failure to do so would defeat their purpose of existence.

Maybe it is time for a "Sciligion" .... or a "Relience" .... :bleh: (hey.... that sounds like the ambani co. hyeah:hyeah: )

 

[blr_p]

I never said evolution is complete BS. It has a lots of truth in it. But I refuse to believe in it entirely. I do not for instance believe that we evolved from apes and that life formed out of inanimate matter.

Whats difficult to distinguish here is your level of knowledge on the subject vs. any shotcomings of the theory.

If it were that simple there are plenty of sources to read up on, however i feel there is more of an emotional unwillingness on your part to do so.

AFAIK the major religons have no problems with evolution. They do however believe that it was God that kick started the process. Evolution for them is God's work, so to speak. Not very threatening if you look at it this way is it

On that statement science can do no better (yet) so they say they dont know. Denying that it was God is just the same thing. If not God then who ? No answer, only hypotheses.

It does not however make evolution false because evolution does not talk about orgins of the mother prototypical species but more the process of how species evolved to their present state and that they will continue to do so in the future.

The logical (albeit indirect) conclusion is that there was one common ancestor for the many existing branches who also came from yet another common ancestor. But i don't think we have any evidence that goes back that far, it must be hundred of millions of years old, if not older. The earth itself is such a dynamic environment that any traces would be hidden a lot better than the proverbial needle in the haystack.

So evolution gives a pretty good picture upto the epochs where there is some evidence. We have half the picture say, its not out of the question to extrapolate further back in time even if there is no evidence present, it will be found one day or it might not matter any more.

If you notice even BBT deals with the actual process and does not make any claims about the orgins at all.

 

[chiron]

Science does not have all the answers. Neither does Religion. Ask them the right questions, be happy with the answers you get. Both of them exist to serve us. When you let Religion take over you, you become too bigoted, and if you take science take over you, you become too skeptical. Use either of them as required, and you'll be happy

Great post to complement the ones by blr_p which also agree the fact that science and religion address different parts of the human psyche and thus need not be at odds with each other.